The development of Democracy: a Licence to vote?

Great Debates
1

Premise 1: We have driving licences. Why? Because driving a car is dangerous to yourself and to others. So we have developed a system that tries to minimize the possibility of accidents. The driving license.

Premise 2: Not everyone is eligible to vote. Some countries deny voting rights to convicted criminals while in prison. Other countries take away your right to vote if you do not vote in two consecutive elections. Equally, people under 18 years old are not allowed to take part in the democratic process.

So I’m thinking. Isn’t voting even more dangerous than driving? Your vote affects others in ways that are somewhat greater than driving your car. And universal suffrage is not that universal, see premise 2.

Therefore, couldn’t we come up with a simple system to make sure that people who vote have a basic grasp of civility, a devent level of empathy, interest in the voting process and the capacity to at least not desire great harm unto others?

I’m thinking of really, really basic questions. For example:

License to vote questionnaire - section 1

You see a child sitting down in a supermarket aisle. He’s crying and is alone. What do you do?

A. Ask ‘what’s wrong? Are your mummy or daddy here?’

B. Ignore it. It’s none of your business.

C. Yell at him to stop crying. He’s showing no respect for others.

D. Slap him until he stops.

Now, I find it absurd that someone who answers ‘D’ has the same right to vote that I do. It’s mad. He shouldn’t vote. Notice that I could even stretch my ethics and accept a ‘C’ answer, just to show that you must be really quite evil to be denied voting rights.

You might say, ‘nobody’s going to choose ‘D’ as an answer’.

Maybe.

But if only one person out of 200 million chooses ‘D’ and is denied the right to vote for the next 4 years, haven’t we done some good?

2

Well, first of all, you don’t have a right to drive a car. You do have a right to vote.

Second of all, such a system would probably be looked upon as something similar to the Soviet Union. You only really count if you are in the Party, and being in the Party means agreeing to the Party’s logic.

Third of all, nothing shows that people can’t cheat on that test. A white supremecist could easily just choose the answers he hates most and pass with flying colors.

Fourth of all, there is absolutely nothing to say that said white supremecist does not have a right to vote because either you disagree with him, or the majority of the people disagrees with him.

Fifth of all, while ideology can indeed be more destructive than a car, the analogy is false. Someone doesn’t necessarily have a chance to kill another person if they vote, whereas with a car, they can easily cause harm to others.

Sixth, to continue the above, there is no “right” way to vote, as opposed to there being a “right” way to driving a car. Even suggesting it destroys what democracy is about.

Lastly, while you may find it distasteful to have a person who would strike a child vote, there is nothing to say that someone who strikes a child loses their vote (unless convicted of a crime). The “questions” on the test would be loaded badly for a specific point of view.

3

Isn’t the definition of what is evil quite subjective? Why should what you consider to be an evil person be prevented from voting? What’s the worst they could do, vote for David Duke?

4

Agreed. But in the system I was proposing, your ability to vote is determined by the test results, like you ability to drive is. Furthermore, that right to vote is exactly what I’m trying to take away.

I think I see what you’re saying, although this system would not narrow the options available to the voter. You’d still be left with democrats, republicans, greens etc. There is still the same space available for disagreeing.

Sure. That’s why I was saying that if only one ‘evil dude’ loses the right to vote, that is still a good thing.

But I wasn’t targeting white supremacists specifically (although we probably would both use their manifestos as toilet paper). I don’t really care what party they vote fore once they pass the test.

Hmm. Tell that to the people who voted against Hitler in 1933.

Again, I don’t care what party they vote for once they pass the test.

Well, the voting license would be the system by which someone who is stupid/evil enough to go for option D on the voting test loses their right to vote. Of course the system doesn’t exist now, there would be no point to my OP otherwise.

5

I don’t see people getting in line to have their right to vote potentially taken away.

What makes you think people who would have voted for him would be filtered out?

Good intentions do not make for a good idea. The best intentions lead to the worst abuses - even if you do not do it on purpose, anyone creating such a test would subconsciously apply their own values into it. Imagine if the test was created by Ashcroft’s regime. It would disqualify a good number of people (assuming they answered honestly).

I think it is against our very concept of government and freedom to have to meet someone’s ethical standards in order to be able to vote, and even with the best purpose, such a system could very easily be turned against the people by a ruling government.

6

Sure, just like you don’t see people standing in line in front of the ‘Have Your Taxes Volountarily Increased Here’ office.

I detect a slight shifting of the goal posts there, Zagadka. What you said previously was that voting did not give someone the chance to kill others, and I understood it as meaning ‘voting is not as dangerous as driving a car’. That’s why I gave you the example of a time when voting for a particular candidate has indeed been as or more dangerous to others than driving a car.

Now, I accept your considerations and agree with you.

But your objections refer to impracticalities, imperfections, slippery slopes. Those shouldn’t be the (only) reasons for not considering the voting licence idea.

Apart from the practical issues involved in putting into practice what is essentially a theoretical exercise in modifying democracy, do we have a philosophical reason why that shouldn’t be so?

Don’t you sometimes secretly agree that you wish some people didn’t vote?

7

Sure they do, every year.

What’s the point of a democracy if the people can’t be trusted to vote? If they want to elect a dictator to rule over them, then how do you, democratically, stop them? Most at the time had no clue that Hitler would go on to kill millions of people and start one the worst wars in the history of the planet, just like many Republicans did not know that Bush would end up running a neocon administration, and are upset about it.

Other than the fact that it is a rape of democracy, that you blithely blew aside?

Slippery slopes are sometimes real, you know. This is one of those cases.

It would no longer be democracy isn’t good enough? Your “theoretical exercise” is very vague. Before anyone could make concrete judgements, we would need to know what the “test” would be like, and who would determine what is “right” and what is “wrong.” I do not see a practical way that you can do that, as such judgements are subjective to whoever is in power at the time.

“I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

8

Who is producing the test? Do the questions stay constant or are they subject to revision? How often can you retest for the right to vote? When must you be retested to keep the right to vote? How are these issues determined?

The problem with this idea is that the answer to these questions are going to resolve to the decision of those in power. Anybody in office who desires a test like this is going to be looking to exclude those they don’t want to vote. This allows the slow shaping of the voting population until there is no change in those holding power.

You may say “That won’t happen. The questions are just to weed out those who don’t take the process seriously by answering with things like ‘D’ and really we don’t want them voting.” To that I say anyone who actually bothers to go and vote isn’t going to be tripped up by any test that would weed out those who don’t take voting seriously. If you want to include weeding out the obviously evil I don’t think there are enough people who match that description voting to worry about.

As for the Hitler being elected issue that was about him gathering a great deal of violent support, playing that up correctly and having supporters already in government. It was not an example of normal democratic process and a country in a situation like Germany at the time is not going to be helped by silly tests to see if you understand that most people don’t like you to hit random crying kids.

On preview Karmagun when people secretly wish that others do not vote is always because the wisher doesn’t believe the other person is voting the right way (i.e. for the wisher’s canidate). It is possible for rational people to disagree over the best canidate because the isuses are complicated.

For a purely theoretical refutation of your idea of a limited democracy is that it is no longer truly a democracy. In the US’s case it would cease to be a representative democracy and become instead something like a big representative oligarchy. Only the select who pass the test determine government. This is different from removing the right to vote under specific conditions as the existing scenario assumes everyone participates and that by some actions you opt out. In the testing scenario it is assumed you cannot vote until you prove yourself worthy to. That is what makes it no longer democracy.

9

Some questions :
Who is to decide which questions wil be included in the test and what are the “bad” answers?
If the question are so blatantly loaded in order to deprive only the most “evil” people from their right to vote, it seems to me that the “correct” answers would be obvious to everybody, hence only an "avil fool would lose his right to vote.
More importantly : I would point out that there’s already a system in place to deprive people deemed unworthy from their right to vote. In most countries, people convicted for serious offenses lose this right. While your system deprives people potentially unworthy (and not many of them, from your own agreement), the current system deprives people who have actually proven to be so. Much more clear cut than an arbitrary test, IMO.

10

I think the term, “innocent until proven guilty” comes into mind.

The basic fact that you don’t EARN the right to vote trumps it all. At the very least, don’t mince words by alleging that your proposition is “improved democracy” - it isn’t.

11

BTW, I’m sure you know that there was a time when voting qualifications were quite stringent. Once upon a time not so very long ago you had to be not only an adult, but a white, male, *property-owning * one. There were also times and places when and where you had to pay a “poll tax.” Or pass a “literacy test.” I’ve heard that it was mere coincidence that the people administering and scoring the “literacy tests” were generally of European ancestry and the people failing those tests were not. :rolleyes:

Don’t get me wrong – there are lots of people I consider to be so foolish that I wish they would simply stay home on election day. Unfortunately, some of them probably think the same thing about me.

12

I believe elections are for people to judge their government not the other way around.

Just my 2sense

13

So, you want to filter out people who hold “Belief X.” True, Belief X is something extraordinarily evil in your eyes, but your post is essentially a proposal to prevent those who admit holding Belief X from voting.

This is unnecessary and undemocratic.

If Belief X (for example, it is wrong to hit random crying children) is truly “evil,” then the majority of the population should be aware of this (the population being reasonably capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong). Hence, people who admit to holding Belief X, though they may be voting for a party hoping to legitimise Belief X, will not succeed in administering their abhorrent belief, because the majority will vote against this belief.

You, or any other person, are not infallable. How can you declare another’s belief “evil” to the extent that that person’s right to vote should be denied on the basis of that belief? Indeed, if such a belief is powerful enough that its proponent can be elected to public office by a majority of the population, surely that suggests the belief has merit?

Now, of course beliefs that can be considered “evil” do belong to elected public officials. There are some positions that politicians take that I do think are evil. However, my belief should not prevent those views from being aired. Most, perhaps all democracies have a system of checks and balances. These are effective in filtering many abhorrent beliefs, and although some may fall through, any process to prevent those beliefs would be so contentious and clumsy that we would be worse off for having administered it.

Also, those who hold Belief X, through being able to vote, feel included in society and are less likely to organise in armed rebellion against society. A voice denied is far more likely to rebel than a voice ineffective through lack of support.

Your driving/voting comparison is also faulty. It is widely agreed that we have a right to live. Living is a default state. It requires no special privelege. In our democracies, we figure that (barring unusual circumstances - such as convicted felons - though I feel felons should be able to vote) adults have a right to say how that society should be governed. After all, they live in that society, and since living requires no special privelige, why then should making choices about the way one lives? Why should one not have a right to influence their government?

However, driving is not a default state. Driving is a skill that must be learnt (unlike staying alive) and due to the immediate dangers presented to and by those engaging in it, the state has every right to regulate it. Yet the regulation, generally, only requires that you show you have the ability to drive. As everyone has the ability to live, everyone has the ability to vote. There is no test needed.

14

Thank you all for your replies. Forgive me for not quoting properly, I have 5 minutes and must leave. Nevertheless:

MLS, About the time when only white males could vote etc. : weak comparison IMO, those were distinctions based on race, sex and class. The voting test would be open to everybody regardless.

Zagadka, strong use of words there: ‘Rape of democracy that you blithely put aside’; ‘Slippery slopes are sometimes real you know, this is one of them’; ‘don’t mince words by alleging that your proposition is “improved democracy” - it isn’t’. Woah. Easy. A slippery slope isn’t one because you say so. My OP was ‘development of democracy’, not improvement. It could be that one day democracy won’t be seen as the most ‘fair and advanced’ sytem of governance. I think it’s healthy to discuss ways in which democracy might develop, as it probably will. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that we’ve got all the answers already. [covers his head waiting for the next rebuttal]

gex gex, the only similarity between driving and voting, natural rights aside, is that they are both potentially harmful activities.

15

See, that’s the key to it, right there. You’re asking a rethorical question. I ask myself that same question and take it seriously. I am not satisfied with democracy.

16

That doesn’t change the fact that it is a rape of democracy that you are so blithely putting aside. Just because the slippery slope fallacy exists doesn’t mean that you can’t take an argument to its logical conclusion. The slippery slope doesn’t immediately disqualify something - for instance, someone in government who wants to make all of the Jews wear special armbands and register with the government can point to a larger future discrimination against the Jews, though someone defending the policy could easily start crying “slippery slope.”

You still haven’t answered the important questions - who defines what evil is? What basis is the judgement made on? Who controls the questions? What right does anyone have to call someone evil and deny them their basic rights? Take a look at the “Political Compass” threads for enough proof that a simple question can be taken any number of ways, and present a basic bias.

Your proposition, while probably well intended, is one that can easily be abused in the most undemocratic way. Making people second-class citizens because they don’t agree with your belief structure is no way for democracy to change.

Frankly, you toss aside some of the basic premises of democracy. Someone is free to say pretty much anything, as long as they don’t do something to break the laws.

There is no absolute “right” or “wrong.”

17

Ok, hang on a second.

Societies have constitutions. Bills of rights. Civic codes. Criminal codes. Laws, decrees, rules, regulations, permits.

All these documents, some of which are continually evolving while others are more or less untouchable, define what is allowed, not allowed, punishable, incentivated, permitted, forbidden.

In essence, they define what is good (please bear with me: I mean in the sense of useful and constructive) and what is evil (in the sense of harmful and destructive).

And yet individuals have their own morality. And our personal morality is often in contrast with what is laid out in the documents listed above. Our stance on abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty, for example.

Now take a look at your list of the important questions I should answer. Do they relate only to the voting licence idea?

I don’t think they do. I think that whether you meant to or not, you are addressing a much, much broader concept of how humans manage to live together in societies.

So I ask you: why are we so touchy about universal suffrage? Can we justify it? Does it do more harm than good? Can we change it somehow? Are we allowed to even talk about it or has the word democracy become our new secular god?

Like when you talk about the rape of democracy. Ok, maybe it’s a rape of democracy. Is it that evil by definition? And if it is, why?

18

Nowhere did I limit free speech. My OP is about universal suffrage. Like I said, I don’t care who people vote for once they earn their right to vote. And they’re free to say whatever they like, whether they vote or don’t.

19

No, they define what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Good and evil are entirely different beasts.

No one is stopping you from talking about it - but that doesn’t prevent anyone from thinking you a fool for it.

I believe in the equality of people and their right to decide government.

You don’t. You believe in an arbitrary definition of who has rights and who doesn’t based on a moral judgement by the existing government.

The fact is, your argument is vague and elitist, neverminding the fact that it can be easily used as a tool for fascism.

No, it is not evil by definition.

20

Well there is this thing called the U.S. Electoral College. I don’t know much about it. Could someone tell me why it hasn’t been brought up?